The Audubon Nature Institute will come back to the public in the hopes of passing a property tax, but it won't be anytime soon, CEO Ron Forman told the Audubon Commission at a Thursday meeting.

The current property taxes on the books are good until 2021 and 2022, Forman said, so the organization has time to reassess its proposal and the strategy needed to get it passed. For now, he said, the Audubon staff will focus on its core values, which led to a 91 percent approval rating before the institute launched its campaign for the tax.

Thursday's meeting was the commission's first since voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot initiative that would have seen property owners pay a 4.2 mill tax for the next 50 years. It amounted to a "Monday morning quarterback session," Forman told the commission, but it's important to assess what went wrong so the institute can be more successful next time.

And there will be a next time. Forman told the commission that passing the millage was "critical" to the future of the park.

The Audubon Institute, which manages several popular attractions, including a zoo, a park and an aquarium, gets about 8 percent of its revenue from property taxes, according to its 2012 financial statement, the latest posted online.

In retrospect, Forman told the commission, there were multiple reasons why voters voted 2-1 against the tax.

According to Forman, many voters:

Were generally opposed to new taxes

Felt that 50 years was too long for such a tax to remain on the books without renewal

Thought that there weren't enough specifics regarding where the money would go.

Perhaps more than anything, he said, many voters are feeling strapped for cash. Rents are up. Wages for many are stagnant.

They knew that taxes for public safety, infrastructure and other essentials would be coming and simply decided that they couldn't afford to fund all of them, Forman said. "And we take that with complete respect."

Still, Forman said, polling paid for by the institute showed that more than 70 percent of voters were in favor of the millage.

Commissioner Tom Watson said that people he talked to felt like the institute had been a little deceptive in its attempt to pass the millage, particularly the decision to put the initiative on the runoff ballot rather than the primary, when more voters went to the polls.

That decision was made at the request of mayor Mayor Mitch Landrieu, Forman said. With his own election, and that of others on the council at stake, he requested that the tax be moved to the runoff.

There were other stumbles that might have built ill will.

Advocates for the 4.2-mill tax billed it as a renewal because it replaced a pair of taxes that, in their original form, also added up to 4.2 mills. However, the millage was rolled back to 3.31 mills in 2008 to keep the total take for the Audubon Institute revenue neutral as property values rose.

Were the millage passed, there's no doubt it would have raised property owners' taxes.

"We clearly could have articulated that more clearly," Forman said.

And then there were the campaign finance disclosures.

Audubon began spending money on its campaign to get the tax passed as far back as late 2013, but it didn't file any campaign reports disclosing the more than $277,000 it spent until after the vote had passed, in apparent violation of state ethics laws.

Forman said that neither he nor his staff has expertise in election law, so they deferred to their lawyer, who handled the campaign finances.

The lone member of the general public who attended the meeting said that, as a voter, she felt that there was a lack of transparency. "I want to know, if I'm paying for it, where is my money going," she said.